Jon, Ben, List, I am finding this exchange most interesting and valuable. Unfortunately, I'm leaving for a holiday tomorrow and haven't the time to draft even a note regarding anything substantial concerning it.
But I will note that in the paragraph just following CP 6.264 which Jon quoted a snippet of, I saw the following passage which may help resolve the ongoing disagreement as to the character of the 'nothing' at the cosmic origins. For the passage shows that Peirce did not conceive of the "primeval chaos' as 'zero', that is, as 'nothing whatsoever', at least from the standpoint of mind being ab-original. But, he also states that it is *was* "mere nothing" from a physical standpoint. I long ago showed that real existence, or thing-ness, consists in regularities. *So, that primeval chaos in which there was no regularity was mere nothing, from a physical aspect. Yet it was not a blank zero; for there was an intensity of consciousness there*. . . (boldface added). CP 6.265 In short, there was and could be no "thing-ness" in the primal chaos exactly *because there were no regularities*. Yet I would continue to hold with you, Jon, that the "there" of "that intensity of consciousness (1ns) there" had to be something like that ur-continuity (3ns) which the blackboard diagram means to suggest. I'm already way behind in preparations for my trip, so I'll have to leave it at that for now. However, I'll attempt to read lists post each day while I'm away. Best, Gary R *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:15 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ben U., List: > > BU: Peirce's _reason_ for thinking space and time continuous was that he > thought that the process of thought is continuous. Insofar as that was at > the basis of his argument for Synechism, John S is right, many of us would > be reluctant to say that physicists ought — even without special relativity > or recent observations of neutrinos — to expect continuity of spacetime on > the basis of continuity of the process of thought as such. > > > Sure, but as I understand it, the continuity of the process of > thought/semeiosis and the primordiality of mind (objective idealism) > together constitute a fallible metaphysical hypothesis that purports to > explain the *surprising *fact of continuous spacetime as observed in the > special sciences. > > BU: The discretism of quantum mechanics pertains first of all to amounts > of energy and the like, not at all to positions in spacetime. Moreover > Peirce did not hold that everything whatsoever is continuous; he said more > than once that matter is discrete and once that it "no doubt" consists of > "Boscovitchian points." > > > Matter itself is indeed discrete, but it is always in a state of > continuous motion, such that positions and instants are artificial > creations for *describing *that motion. Likewise, definite propositions > are artificial creations for *describing *the continuous process of > thought/semeiosis. > > CSP: ... an Argument is no more built up of Propositions than a motion is > built up of positions. So to regard it is to neglect the very essence of it > ... Just as it is strictly correct to say that nobody is ever in an exact > Position (except instantaneously, and an Instant is a fiction, or *ens > rationis*), but Positions ... are *entia rationis* (i.e. fictions > recognized to be fictions, and thus no longer fictions) invented for the > purposes of closer descriptions of states of motion; so likewise, Thought > (I am not talking Psychology, but Logic, or the essence of Semeiotics) > cannot, from the nature of it, be at rest, or be anything but inferential > process; and propositions ... are artificial creations intended to render > the description of Thought-motion possible; and Names are creations of a > second order serving to render the representation of propositions possible. > (R 295:117-118[102-103]; 1906) > > > Peirce also discussed the parallels between thought and motion in CP 2.27 > (1902), invoking "the Achilles and Tortoise argument of Zeno" and > characterizing the formulation of an argument into a series of definite > propositions (premisses and conclusions) as "only the self-defence of the > process" *after *it has already run its (continuous) course. I have > suggested on-List previously that in accordance with his objective > idealism, motion is a *degenerate *form of thought/semeiosis, since > "physical events are but degraded or undeveloped forms of psychical events" > and "the phenomena of matter are but the result of the sensibly complete > sway of habits upon mind" (CP 6.264, EP 1:348; 1892). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:56 AM Ben Udell <baud...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Jeff D, John S, list, >> >> Jeff, I think that you're correct that quantum mechanics is not at all so >> contrary to continuity as people sometimes think. As you say, QM has been >> reconciled with special relativity, leading to quantum field theory. It is >> the Lorentz invariance in SR that demands continuity of spacetime. It's >> been claimed that limits on any violation of Lorentz invariance continue to >> be tightened, mainly through astrophysical observations of neutrinos that >> enter the atmosphere. As I've said before, Peirce's view that space and >> time are continuous continues to look good. The Lorentz symmetries are >> holding, and, from what I've read in the past, only the Lorentz symmetries >> and the Galilean symmetries allow for the Principle of Relativity, that the >> laws of nature "look the same" in all inertial frames of reference. I >> don't have references handy, but I think those two sets of symmetries are >> the only games in town. Theoretical physics would get very complicated with >> Lorentz symmetries plus corrections for their observed violations, >> >> Limits on neutrino Lorentz violation from multimessenger observations of >> TXS 0506+056 [a blazar] >> Physics Letters B, Volume 789, 10 February 2019, Pages 352-355 >> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269318309821 >> >> Testing Lorentz Symmetry Using High Energy Astrophysics Observations >> Symmetry 2017, 9(10), 201; https://doi.org/10.3390/sym9100201 >> https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/9/10/201/htm >> >> Test of Lorentz invariance with atmospheric neutrinos >> Phys. Rev. D 91, 052003 – Published 3 March 2015 >> https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.052003 >> >> 7.3 Billlion Years Later, Einstein's Theory Prevails" >> Oct. 28, 2009, New York Times >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/science/space/29light.html >> >> Peirce's _reason_ for thinking space and time continuous was that he >> thought that the process of thought is continuous. Insofar as that was at >> the basis of his argument for Synechism, John S is right, many of us would >> be reluctant to say that physicists ought — even without special relativity >> or recent observations of neutrinos — to expect continuity of spacetime on >> the basis of continuity of the process of thought as such. More to the >> point, even very good physicists familiar with Peirce would (I think) tread >> carefully in that regard. >> >> The discretism of quantum mechanics pertains first of all to amounts of >> energy and the like, not at all to positions in spacetime. Moreover Peirce >> did not hold that everything whatsoever is continuous; he said more than >> once that matter is discrete and once that it "no doubt" consists of >> "Boscovitchian points." QM's discretism about things like energy levels >> leads to surprises that nobody anticipated, e.g., the limited internal heat >> capacities of particles (note, massless particles have no internal >> mass/energy at all), hand in hand with their limited capacities to contain >> information, which in turn is related to the severe uniformity of particles >> of the same kind. >> >> I've said enough, I myself am no physicist. >> >> Best, Ben >> >> On 9/3/2019 12:17 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote: >> >> John S, List, >> >> John: Re Cosmology: Peirce learned mathematics, physics, and astronomy >> at his father's knee. Until he lost his position at USCGS and JHU, his >> knowledge of those fields was at the forefront of research, and that >> research is reflected in his cosmology. No one knows what he might have >> thought about quantum mechanics. It supports his Tychism, but it poses a >> challenge to his preference for Synechism. . . . For these reasons, I'm >> skeptical about using Synechism to support claims about cosmology. >> Peirce's logic and semeiotic are still at the forefront of research today. >> But his physics is obsolete, and so is any mathematical metaphysics that is >> inconsistent with QM. >> >> Jeff: QM takes states--most of which are characterized in discrete >> terms--as the primary objects in the universe of discourse for the theory. >> As such, there appears to be a tension between Peirce's insistence on the >> importance of the principle of continuity for physics and the QM of the >> first part of the 20th century. Having said that, it was already recognized >> by 1920 that some things that seemed to have characteristics that could be >> characterized in the terms of discrete quanta, such as light, also needed >> to be understood in terms of waves moving in an EM field. >> >> For my part, I don't think the tension between the emphasis on >> discreteness in the standard interpretation of QM and Peirce's synechism in >> physics is as great as some might take it to be. After all, the states are >> taken to involve probabilistic distributions where some characteristics are >> more continuous even if other characteristics are more discrete. In the >> latter part of the century, however, the standard theory of QM is >> understood to be just a part of the picture of what is happening at the >> quantum level. The fuller picture seems to involve explaining phenomena in >> relativistic terms (RQM). What is more, many things that are not >> sufficiently explained in the terms of RQM are better explained by appeal >> to quantum field theory, which takes operators and not states as the >> primary objects in the universe of discourse for the theory. The operators >> in the fields are understood in terms of continuous distributions in fields >> >> My estimate, which is highly prone to error in these matters, is that >> many physicists today seem to take RQM and QFT to be more fundamental than >> the standard interpretation of QM. >> >> --Jeff >> >> Jeffrey Downard >> Associate Professor >> Department of Philosophy >> Northern Arizona University >> (o) 928 523-8354 >> >>
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
